• 41 Posts
Joined 1Y ago
Cake day: Jan 22, 2022


What exactly is braxman? My dad started showing me his stuff and he struck me as a scammer.

thank you for the info. The article I said highlighted it as a potential point of conflict with Russia but I’m not deeply into that subject so I don’t really know.

I really like Lemmy but it is true that it does have some issues attracting active contributors or commentators. I think some of this might be because it’s a little more explicitly political as a project. Some of it is because it’s newer I think. Some of it is because less people use stuff like reddit to begin with, so it’s kind of a niche audience.

There’s been issues with troll brigading in the past which I think makes the community a little more insular by default.

Is this related to China also limiting cpus to Russia? I read something about that earlier this week.

Ranger is great. Similar to Mc.

Also like warp door which basically is bookmarks for your file directory.

And jump is great it’s like a fuzzy finder for locations in your directory.

Property is a spook. Post scarcity is here. We have to adapt our economic system to the new reality.

Shakespeare didn’t invent Romeo and Juliet you know? Back in the day artists didn’t have a concept of IP. People would just freely rip off and adapt one another.

This is good for mastodon I’m sure which I like but I kind of feel like Vivaldi is a little over packed with stuff. I use it on mobile because Chrome made a change to the way tab groups where handled which I wasn’t a fan of and I feel like Firefox mobile kinda sucks. I used Mozilla on desktop for the longest time but recently switched after getting a new laptop because it just can’t properly sync my bookmarks between machines with the same account so I got tired and switched back to Chrome after swearing it off. I’d love to know a mobile browser in the chromium family that has proper syncing for the account and has both a good desktop and mobile experience. I just found Vivaldi overwhelming with all the extra crap I didn’t want.

It’s for all generated art. So neural network stuff but also algorithmic, simulated, 3d, interactive installations, and electronic hardware stuff too!

And I’m arguing that concepts have no independent reality apart from words.

The word is not the concept. But the concept is also jot the material reality. You’re reifying concepts and treating them as if they have some sort of transhistorical reality.

Gravity is not the word gravity though! The idea of gravity is not the same thing as the force itself. The word “socialism” is not the material transition of society.

Seriously please take this issue under consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy)

You seem to be incapable of separating map and territory in your mind. I do not know what more I can say.

The issue is not that Marx did not merely use a specific piece of vocab. It is that you can not treat ideas as transhistorical.

Here’s another way to put it by analogy: the gravity of Einstein is not the gravity of Newton. Newton’s worldview and his understanding of his theories in that worldview does not reflect in the worldview of Einstein. We can certainly recognize how Newton influenced Einstein and how that gave foundation for new ideas and evolution of ideas but when Newton says “gravity” he does not mean the same thing as when Einstein says “gravity”. They are using the same word to mean different things. Their use of the word is historically contingent.

What I said is that the transitionary period is what we commonly refer to as socialist phase in modern parlance.

Right and my contention is that it is not correct to equate parlance like that.

It would be like saying “Jesus was a Maoist” because you believe that his particular gospel of apocalyptic anti-imperialist spiritualism was structurally similar to certain tenets of Mao and therefore creates some sort of transhistorical link.

Ideas aren’t transhistorical. They are not independent of human minds. They are necessarily embedded in their historical context. They’re not transferable just because they look similar.

To help make this more concrete consider convergent evolution and genes. You’ve probably heard of carcinisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

That’s the tendency of animals in specific kinds of environments to trend towards a crablike body form. This has happened dozens of times independently across the Tree of Life over the last couple of billions of years.

There is no “crab gene”. There is no gene which is “crabness”. Two crabs look similar, they have similar material conditions that gave rise to them and we can use human language to draw parallels between them but to reify “crab form” as the concrete “crab gene” would be a mistake.

A gene is a concrete thing. It’s a very specific chemical encoding with a concrete physical history. The “crab body form” is not concrete. It’s an idea, it’s a useful idea but it’s not the physical concrete material reality itself, and confusing the two creates misunderstandings about what is a crab or isn’t a crab.